IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  24 February 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100021536 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests the award of the Purple Heart (PH) and Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB) and correction of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) to show all awards to which he may be entitled.

2.  The applicant states he should have been awarded the PH and CIB.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 March 1966.  He was trained in and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 73C (Pay Disbursing Specialist).

3.  The applicant's DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he served in Vietnam from September 1967 through on or about 19 October 1968.  Item 38 (Record of Assignments) shows that during his tour of duty in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) he was assigned to the 22nd Finance Detachment and that he performed the duties of senior disbursing and senior voucher examination specialist.

4.  Item 38 of the DA Form 20 also shows the applicant received "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings at each of his active duty assignments.  His official military personnel file (OMPF) is void of any derogatory information or a unit commander's disqualification that would have precluded him from receiving the AGCM.

5.  Item 40 (Wounds) of the DA Form 20 is blank and item 41 (Awards and Decorations) does not include the PH or the CIB.

6.  The applicant's OMPF is void of any orders or documents that indicate he was ever recommended for or awarded the PH or CIB while serving in Vietnam or at any other time during his military service.  It is also void of any medical treatment records that indicate he was ever treated for a combat-related wound or injury while serving in the RVN.

7.  On 19 October 1968, the applicant was honorably released from active duty in the rank/grade of specialist five/E-5 after completing 2 years, 7 months, and 2 days of total active service.  Item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of his DD Form 214 shows he earned the following awards:

* National Defense Service Medal
* Vietnam Service Medal (VSM)
* RVN Campaign Medal
* two overseas service bars
* Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with M-16 Rifle Bar

8.  A review of the Awards and Decorations Computer-Assisted Retrieval System, an index of general orders issued during the Vietnam era between 1965 and 1973 maintained by the Military Awards Branch of the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, failed to reveal any orders for the PH or the CIB pertaining to the applicant.

9.  During the processing of this case, a member of the Board staff reviewed the Vietnam casualty roster.  There is no entry pertaining to the applicant on this list of RVN casualties.

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes the Army's awards policy.  Paragraph 2-8 contains the regulatory guidance pertaining to award of the PH.  It states that in order to support award of the PH there must be evidence the wound for which the award is being made was received as a result of enemy action, the wound required treatment by medical personnel, and a record of this medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record.

11.  Paragraph 2-13 of Army Regulation 600-8-22 contains the regulatory guidance on the VSM.  It states that a bronze service star is authorized with this award for each Vietnam campaign a member is credited with participating in.  Appendix B shows that during his service in Vietnam, the applicant participated in the following four campaigns:

* Vietnam Counteroffensive Phase III
* Tet Counteroffensive
* Vietnam Counteroffensive Phase IV
* Vietnam Counteroffensive Phase V

12.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 contains guidance on badges and tabs of U.S. origin.  Paragraph 8-6 contains guidance on the CIB criteria and requires that the member was an infantryman satisfactorily performing infantry duties; that he was assigned to an infantry unit of brigade, regimental, or smaller size during such time as the unit was engaged in active ground combat; and that he was present with his qualifying infantry unit and actively participated in such ground combat.

13.  Army Regulation 672-5-1 (Decorations and Awards), in effect at the time, provided policy and criteria concerning individual military decorations.  It stated the AGCM was awarded for each 3 years of continuous enlisted active Federal military service completed on or after 27 August 1940 and, for the first award only, upon termination of service on or after 27 June 1950 of less than 3 years but more than 1 year.  The Soldier's conduct and efficiency ratings must have been rated as "excellent" for the entire period of qualifying service.

14.  Department of the Army General Orders Number 8, dated 1974, authorized award of the RVN Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation to all personnel assigned to the RVN between 8 February 1962 and 28 March 1973.


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends he should be awarded the PH, CIB, and his DD Form 214 should be corrected to show all awards to which he may be entitled.

2.  The applicant's DA Form 20 confirms the applicant received "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings at all of his active duty assignments and his OMPF is void of any derogatory information or a unit commander's disqualification that would have precluded him from receiving the AGCM.  As a result, he should be awarded the AGCM and it should be added to his record and DD Form 214.

3.  The evidence of record also confirms that based on his RVN service and campaign participation, he is entitled to the RVN Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation and four bronze service stars for wear with his VSM.  Thus, it would be appropriate to add these awards to his DD Form 214 at this time.

4.  By regulation, in order to support award of the PH there must be evidence the wound for which the award is being made was received as a result of enemy action, the wound required treatment by medical personnel, and a record of this medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record.  In this case, the evidence of record fails to corroborate the applicant's claim of entitlement to the PH.

5.  Item 40 of the applicant's DA Form 20 is blank which indicates he was not reported as being wounded in action.  Further, his name is not included on the Vietnam casualty roster, the official Department of the Army list of RVN battle casualties.  As a result, the regulatory burden of proof necessary to support award of the PH has not been satisfied in this case.

6.  The evidence of record in this case confirms that during his RVN tour of duty, the applicant held and served in MOS 73C as a senior disbursing pay and senior voucher examination specialist while assigned to the 22nd Finance Detachment. 
There is no evidence to show he ever held or served in an infantry MOS or that indicates he was assigned to a qualifying infantry unit while serving in the RVN.  As a result, the regulatory criteria necessary to support award of the CIB has not been satisfied in this case.

7.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant's records should be corrected as recommended below.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

___X____  ___X____  ____X___  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by:

	a.  awarding him the AGCM for his qualifying period of honorable active duty service from 18 March 1966 through 19 October 1968;

	b.  amending item 24 of his DD Form 214 by deleting the VSM and adding the AGCM, VSM with four bronze service stars, and RVN Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation; and

	c.  issuing a correction to his DD Form 214 to reflect these awards.

2.  The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to the PH and CIB.



      _______ _  X_______   ___
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100021536



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100021536



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1